It's not naive at all. The stakes might have to be high before the U.S. engages in that kind of coercion, but even that's not necessarily true and it's hardly unprecedented for the U.S. to throw its weight around. And the U.S. has other means of persuasion such as aid, access to the largest market in the world, the power to facilitate or stop other diplomatic, economic or political priorities, etc. etc.

One announced U.S. strategy in the Pacific is to spread forces widely rather than concentrate them, and to utilize bases of friendly nations (who don't need U.S. coercion these days with the Chinese government coercing them right into America's arms). The U.S. recently made such agreements with Australia, The Philippines, Vietnam, and Singapore, and of course has long-standing bases in Japan and South Korea. Indonesia is almost the only major nation left in the region who isn't on board.

Are you suggesting that it is acceptable to force neutral parties into a war? Or are you trying to negotiate with your enemies for the right to bomb them? I'm not sure I say any reasonable interpretation of that proposal.

It's been done many times. The UK grabbed Iceland in WWII, providing a base for transfer of US aircraft. Germany took a trip through Belgium and got the Swiss to allow trains through.

When things get serious, thoughts like "I would never do such a thing!" are quickly cast aside.

Belgium tried to uphold its neutrality in WWI - Germany invaded and ransacked the country anyway.

I definitely feel that played a part in allowing Germany in WW2

Sort of - the Danish Government in exile was in London and at that time Iceland was still controlled by Denmark. But yes, "Needs Must" as the saying goes.